Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

Democrats - Richard Ojeda has caught my fancy and I think Kamala Harris is amazing. Balanced ticket, Ojeda draws Trump voters, Harris can wipe the floor with anybody the Republicans put up for Vice-President. The Republicans have established that you don't really need any government or legislative experience for President, and Ojeda is a veteran, which puts him more than a bit ahead of Cadet Bonespurs in terms of relevant experience.

Republicans - Are there any brave enough to try to primary Trump? Will Trump bow out gracefully and move to a nice dacha in Russia before being indicted in absentia? Does Mike Pence really want to be Vice-President for another 4 years?

The House will be up for grabs again and presidential year elections have bigger turnouts. Is the Senate a toss-up?

Comments

That website is terrible. If they want votes (or, probably even more, contributions), they need to say something about their candidate. I had never heard of him, and that website told me nothing. (Well, maybe I should have watched the video. But some text to make me want to watch the video would have been good.)

Kamala Harris has made some very controversial statements which will come back to bite her if she runs.

Basically, running for re-election (that is, raising money for your next campaign) once you've been elected is a major piece of the job, and the shorter your term is (reps vs. senators), the more of your time must be devoted to fundraising / campaigning.

How? He has the worst approval rating in the history of the presidency. The House has two years to investigate the bastard. The Mueller report may be due out first part of next year. Several states are investigating him. He lost a lot of the districts that were red in 2016. I can see quite a few Republican candidates that will challenge him. The party is all but split. How?

Trump doesn’t have to get the approval of a majority of Americans. He can win by getting the votes of a small number of angry white people in flyover States. Same as he did last time. The Democrats can get 80% of the vote in California and still lose if they can’t win Wisconsin (for example).

How? He has the worst approval rating in the history of the presidency.

He's an incumbent president. Any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency. As such Trump is more likely to win the presidency than [ specific Democrat ], who has to make it through a contested primary to have a shot. This may not translate to a better than even chance to beat [ generic Democrat ] but it makes him an oddsmaker's favorite at this point.

To be a little pedantic about it, Trump only has the worst approval rating in the history of presidential polling. That only goes back as far as FDR.

For those who are curious, here are the net approval ratings (percent approve minus percent disapprove) for various presidents during their first term, according to Gallup polling.

Johnson* (D 36) +60.4

Kennedy* (D 35) +54.0

Eisenhower (R 34) +52.3

G. H. W. Bush (R 41) +31.1

G. W. Bush (R 43) +29.7

Nixon (R 37) +26.8

Truman* (R 38) +21.7

Reagan (R 40) +11.2

Ford* (R 38) +9.7

Clinton (D 42) +7.8

Carter (D 39) +6.2

Obama (D 44) +5.4

Trump* (R 45) -15.8

Note that this is only the net approval for their first term in office. Some would see severe revisions upward (Clinton) or downward (Johnson, Nixon, G. W. Bush) in their second terms, for those who had second terms (who are listed in bold). Data for Trump is, naturally, only for slightly less than half a term at this point but he stands out as the only first term president to have (so far) a negative net approval rating. The numbers for Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Ford represent partial terms as well and are marked with an asterisk.

I'm not sure what makes any candidate who does not have as much name-recognition as Hillary or Trump likely to win their party's nomination or the presidency. Outside the liberal base, most Americans know very little or nothing at all about any of the possible Democratic candidates except maybe Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. I'm not even sure how much Elizabeth Warren is a household name among people who do not follow the news much. However, since the liberal base (who aren't all Bernie fans), wealthy donors, and interest groups are often very influential in determining the nominee, neither Biden or Sanders may get the nomination if they even run - and I'm not sure if either of them would be the best candidate or the best president.

We may wind up with a candidate being the nominee who isn't the most well-known at this stage. What confuses me is what it is that makes someone most likely to win the nomination. Name recognition, celebrity, charisma, good looks, an inspiring life story, progressive zeal, centrist pragmatism, experience, distance from Washington, from the Democratic establishment, or (previously) from politics altogether, skill at parrying and fighting back when attacked, appeal to people of color (often by being one), women, blue collar workers, or to young people, and (nowadays) even prodigious fund-raising ability - along with any combination of these things - do not seem to be enough to predict who will win.

Back in October FiveThirtyEight compiled a table summarizing who was acting like a 2020 presidential candidate. The markers of "acting like a 2020 presidential candidate" include trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and/or South Carolina (the first three states to have primaries/caucuses), publishing a book, being profiled in a magazine, or campaigning on behalf of a senator, governor, or other candidate(s).

The table, as far as I know, has not been updated since October so it's an historical artifact at this point. We'll know for sure next August when we see who shows up at the Iowa State Fair.

Agreed. The website makes a single point, which is that anyone wanting to serve in government should give up all their wealth over a million dollars. Congressmen, per his website, make $175,000 a year. If you're making $175,000 a year, and you have a working spouse, you're able to pay off the mortgage on a million dollar house in a decade.
If you're making $175,000 for any significant length of time, you have retirement savings of more than a million dollars.

Therefore his numbers are bollocks, so he hasn't thought things through, and so isn't a serious candidate. His general point - that the country is run by a bunch of corrupt self-serving oligarchs - is one that's quite easy to agree with (and not by any means unique to the US), but his website is high school posturing.

Some people run for US president so they can raise issues during the campaign. They don't necessarily think they'll have a chance of even being nominated. Of course, you never know...

Some run so they can say they ran--and just maybe...

And then some who don't want the job run in order to position themselves for other goals, such as T. And, when they win, don't have the great good sense to turn down a job they never wanted, wouldn't be good at, and would probably hate.

Ojeda's site looks like he's in the first category. IMHO, he would've been better off waiting 'til he had a polished, professional campaign site.

He seems to be positioning himself as a down-to-earth, no-nonsense guy. And probably as a Christian, given that apparent prayer with the blonde woman carrying the red Bible.

Agreed. The website makes a single point, which is that anyone wanting to serve in government should give up all their wealth over a million dollars. Congressmen, per his website, make $175,000 a year. If you're making $175,000 a year, and you have a working spouse, you're able to pay off the mortgage on a million dollar house in a decade.
If you're making $175,000 for any significant length of time, you have retirement savings of more than a million dollars.

One way Congresspeople make their millions--if they do not have it before they are elected--is through insider trading. It is my understanding when Congress passed the Securities Exchange Laws back in the 20's they conveniently exempted themselves from the law. I do not think that loophole has ever been closed.

They can also charge speaking fees and have book deals that can bring in quite a chunk of money

Most Congress-critters, though, need to have places to lay their heads both in Washington (an expensive place to find shelter in) and their home districts. There's also frequent travel between the two places,and the further a way home district is, the costlier the travel.

Also bear in mind that the stock market has just had its worsts week in a decade, so insider trading is an inevitable route to riches; just a likely one.

It is my understanding when Congress passed the Securities Exchange Laws back in the 20's they conveniently exempted themselves from the law. I do not think that loophole has ever been closed.

It's been closed enough that Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY27) was recently arrested for insider trading. Despite being indicted he won re-election in November, though by a narrower margin than his past elections.

There was a STOCK Act passed in 2012 and signed by Obama that supposedly closed the loophole. Shows how behind the times I am. However, it was amended a couple of years ago that changed the rules a bit. Under the original act, Congress members were to submit public disclosure forms showing their stock trades. Now, the forms are not public and subject only to review by the House or Senate Ethics committees. Kind of like a salesman sticking a foot in the door, in my mind.

However, since the liberal base (who aren't all Bernie fans), wealthy donors, and interest groups are often very influential in determining the nominee, neither Biden or Sanders may get the nomination if they even run - and I'm not sure if either of them would be the best candidate or the best president.

Then start getting used to DT, because those are currently the only two that have a chance. Strike off the minorities, the US is a different country now than the one that elected Obama. Strike off the women, partly for that reason and partly because the two with name recognition won't manage what is necessary for the campaign. Really, Biden should be your choice. He has that same say whatever the fuck attitude that served Trump well; he's likeable, relateable and he is a white male.

Then start getting used to DT, because those are currently the only two that have a chance. Strike off the minorities, the US is a different country now than the one that elected Obama. Strike off the women, partly for that reason and partly because the two with name recognition won't manage what is necessary for the campaign.

As a counterpoint to the recommendation that the Democrats adopt a "No Wimmin or N-[ clang ] (or Queers)" policy it should be noted that in the last election nearly three million more Americans voted for a Democratic woman than for a Republican man. Donald Trump is not heading up some electoral juggernaut. He had a very fluky, razor thin minority victory dependent upon, in no particular order:

A press that's been negatively obsessed with Hillary Clinton for a quarter century

It seems like folly to assume that all of these conditions will persist and be as important in the 2020 election. I'm also not sure that crafting a strategy to appeal to racists and sexists is a winning one for the Democrats. Those folks already have a party, the Republicans, and I don't think a race to the bottom on those issues is going to convince that many racists and sexists to switch their allegiance. I think we've also passed the point where women and minorities are going to accept a "we'll take your votes, but don't expect a place at the grown-up's table" policy. Having a sexist and racist standard for who heads the presidential ticket is likely to lose the Democrats more votes than it would gain them.

Then start getting used to DT, because those are currently the only two that have a chance. Strike off the minorities, the US is a different country now than the one that elected Obama. Strike off the women, partly for that reason and partly because the two with name recognition won't manage what is necessary for the campaign.

As a counterpoint to the recommendation that the Democrats adopt a "No Wimmin or N-[ clang ] (or Queers)" policy it should be noted that in the last election nearly three million more Americans voted for a Democratic woman than for a Republican man. Donald Trump is not heading up some electoral juggernaut. He had a very fluky, razor thin minority victory dependent upon, in no particular order:

A press that's been negatively obsessed with Hillary Clinton for a quarter century

It seems like folly to assume that all of these conditions will persist and be as important in the 2020 election. I'm also not sure that crafting a strategy to appeal to racists and sexists is a winning one for the Democrats. Those folks already have a party, the Republicans, and I don't think a race to the bottom on those issues is going to convince that many racists and sexists to switch their allegiance. I think we've also passed the point where women and minorities are going to accept a "we'll take your votes, but don't expect a place at the grown-up's table" policy. Having a sexist and racist standard for who heads the presidential ticket is likely to lose the Democrats more votes than it would gain them.

I’m the last person to want any country to pander to misogynists or racists. But there are a couple of important factors here. One is that the incumbent, no matter how incompetent, has a statistical advantage.
The other is that the majority of people who vote are in the Trumpestous demographic. Whilst the midterms were incouraging, local voting patterns aren’t national voting patterns, especially with the electoral college.
Another problem is that what gets people elected is not their fitness for office, which should be abundantly clear after 2016.
Warren might have the charsisma, but she’s lost her shine and would need to work on that. Plus she doesn’t play the game well against trump. Going high is fine if you have the the right game. I don’t see that in her.
Harris has some of the personality to compete, but I don’t see her winning.
Michelle Obama is probably the only prominent minority and female who might have a chance. But AFAIK, she’s not running.
Look up the NPR poll on political correctness.
So vote your conscious and enjoy an additional four years of shite.

If only there were some way to provide a link to information collected in some web of worldwide data! That would be really convenient. The problem with polls like this is "politically correct" is a ill-defined buzzword that means different things to different people. Ask the same group whether the U.S. should be more racist and/or sexist and you'd get likely get the opposite result, despite racism and sexism being "politically incorrect".

I would also just point out that a record number of women / people of color have just been voted into the House. I can't claim my tea-leaf-reading skills are superior to anyone else's, but the midterms do suggest that plenty of voters are now fed to the teeth with our current Entitled Pustule-in-Chief, and (given our poorly-educated populace's tendency toward simplistic black-and-white thinking) will go to some lengths to elect someone who can be seen as his polar opposite. Look at the enthusiasm ramped up by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama.

I personally don't support either for a presidential bid; Mrs. Obama has a law degree and popularity (and a husband with experience), but lacks experience of her own (plus I can't imagine she wants the job); Ms. Winfrey has popularity and a bully pulpit of sorts, but is also a borderline New Age wealthy fruitcake -- well-intentioned, maybe, but a little too "if you can dream it, you can make it so" for my tastes. That's not a realistic stance, given the gigantic hurdles we are currently placing -- and guarding! -- in front of our poor, our young, and our vulnerable.

Meanwhile, we could go down a list of potential female contenders of any color and point out, as our media routinely do, the Monstrous Fatal Flaw in each and every one which could be applied in spades to each and every male contender (but won't be) and ask ourselves where we get this notion that women candidates (but not men) must be perfect in every way? Why is it that male candidates can make missteps and then recover, but women candidates cannot (think Elizabeth Warren and her Native American issue)? Why are voters willing to forgive egregious behavior in male candidates and officeholders, but are prepared to burn similarly-challenged female candidates and officeholders at the stake?

Fair enough on not being the last person, but I am, NOT recommending pandering to racists and misogynists. Because any Democratic candidate will at least have to be somewhere on the progressive side of the scale, for one. And how, the fuck, does voting for a person who has no chance to win help anyone but the opposition?

If only there were some way to provide a link to information collected in some web of worldwide data! That would be really convenient. The problem with polls like this is "politically correct" is a ill-defined buzzword that means different things to different people.

This is true. Though, IME, the common denominator truly is "I want to be able to say shit about other people without being called on it." So Mexicans want to be able to say shit about black people who want to be able to say shit about Asians who want to be able to make transphobic comments. But none of them want shit said about them.
And so anyone who talks about respecting other people runs the border of those two things and makes people nervous.¹ Whilst an exact interpretation of that poll is difficult, no signs point to a positive one.

Doesn't matter, unless an amazing candidate arises, the Democrats are going to lose. Whoever gets the nod at the convention, they are already Bernied.²

The road to the white house, or any prominent political office, does not begin at the final step. Unless one is possessed by amazing charisma and blessed by fortuitous timing, one cannot start in the last mile. Most of the candidates are.

¹Which is one reason why Biden is such a good bet. He can talk about respect, but his reputation for being less than perfectly politically correct reduces the fear. Look, the dinosaur doesn't understand the mechanisms of rape, or sexism or crime. He isn't the best choice for who can run the US. But he might be the best available who has a chance of winning.

²For the less perspicacious, a significant factor in Clinton's loss was Bernie Sanders and the dumb fucks who remained "loyal" to him when he clearly was not going to win. The crowded field and divided allegiance and goals is very likely to render any gains like the midterm movement ineffective.

Adding: A significant problem the Democracts have is splintering. Each advocacy group that doesn't like a particular candidates past, will attack that candidate instead of looking at what furthers their goals. What should happen, IMO, is that they should look at fixing what is there instead of hoping for something that isn't.

I would also just point out that a record number of women / people of color have just been voted into the House.

I am not claiming to be an expert in any politics, much less American ones. But, IME, local elections are not completely analogous to presidential. In part because of the electoral college, but in part because local candidates have a more direct connection and perceived effect.

Look at the enthusiasm ramped up by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama.

I cannot see how either would be worse that the current office holder, though.

Meanwhile, we could go down a list of potential female contenders of any color and point out, as our media routinely do, the Monstrous Fatal Flaw in each and every one which could be applied in spades to each and every male contender (but won't be) and ask ourselves where we get this notion that women candidates (but not men) must be perfect in every way? Why is it that male candidates can make missteps and then recover, but women candidates cannot (think Elizabeth Warren and her Native American issue)? Why are voters willing to forgive egregious behavior in male candidates and officeholders, but are prepared to burn similarly-challenged female candidates and officeholders at the stake?

Wrong way to look at this. You are looking at what is fair, life isn't. People need to change the narratives, this is true. Four additional years of Trump are likely the least effective way to do that. His first term is barely half over and already we see the harm being done. He will likely survive to finish the first, why give him another one?

...
Adding: A significant problem the Democracts have is splintering. Each advocacy group that doesn't like a particular candidates past, will attack that candidate instead of looking at what furthers their goals. What should happen, IMO, is that they should look at fixing what is there instead of hoping for something that isn't.

Ideological purity seems to particularly afflict the left and drives me personally completely bonkers. Politics a game of addition, not subtraction. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And let's not forget the example of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea. Wankers.

It's a long way until 2020, and as much I dread the thought, Trump will probably appoint another white man, maybe two, to the Supreme Court before then. The only things the Democrats can offer that Republicans won't are better health insurance, abortion and birth control rights - which in any sane country would be included in health care - and a non-delusional approach to climate change. Winning in 2020 might actually be the easy part; creating policy and legislation that will get past the Supreme Court and the federal courts may be impossible for decades.

But the Russians are the wild card. They've already successfully installed their puppet Siberian Candidate and infiltrated the NRA and GOP; what's next?

It was a hilarious quote. However, the spectacle of people who broadly support progressive politics arguing over details of strategy is never fun to watch. There's only one winner here people, and their name is Romanlion.

Fair enough on not being the last person, but I am, NOT recommending pandering to racists and misogynists.

The bare assertion of "I'm not recommending pandering to racists and misogynists, I just think there should be racial and gender barriers to the presidency" is not terribly convincing. If reserving the presidency to someone with a pale penis isn't "pandering to racists and misogynists", what is?

This assertion would seem more plausible if the majority of people who voted in 2016 voted for Trump. They didn't. He didn't even get a plurality.

Fair enough, but why did he still win? That must still be considered.

I'm pretty sure I already answered this in convenient, bullet pointed form. Building an electoral strategy based on the assumption that all these factors will be just as present and relevant in 2020 as they were in 2016 seems like the political equivalent of generals always wanting to re-fight the last war.

¹Which is one reason why Biden is such a good bet. He can talk about respect, but his reputation for being less than perfectly politically correct reduces the fear. Look, the dinosaur doesn't understand the mechanisms of rape, or sexism or crime. He isn't the best choice for who can run the US. But he might be the best available who has a chance of winning.

I've already explained why a Biden candidacy isn't the sure thing everyone seems to think it is elsewhere. The short version of it is that his two previous presidential campaigns were spectacular flameouts and there is no reason to believe he'd be any more competent at running a national campaign in 2020. Anyone claiming Biden is a sure thing in 2020 has to answer the question of why he's better at campaigning than the 1988 or 2008 primary versions of himself.

Meanwhile, we could go down a list of potential female contenders of any color and point out, as our media routinely do, the Monstrous Fatal Flaw in each and every one which could be applied in spades to each and every male contender (but won't be) and ask ourselves where we get this notion that women candidates (but not men) must be perfect in every way? Why is it that male candidates can make missteps and then recover, but women candidates cannot (think Elizabeth Warren and her Native American issue)? Why are voters willing to forgive egregious behavior in male candidates and officeholders, but are prepared to burn similarly-challenged female candidates and officeholders at the stake?

Wrong way to look at this. You are looking at what is fair, life isn't. People need to change the narratives, this is true. Four additional years of Trump are likely the least effective way to do that. His first term is barely half over and already we see the harm being done. He will likely survive to finish the first, why give him another one?

I think both of these analyses miss the point. Male candidates can be derailed by inane trivia or outright falsehoods. Think about all the column-inches wasted on Al Gore sighing or wearing earth tones, or on the accusation that John Kerry was falsely claiming to have won three Purple Hearts. Assuming that Mighty Whitey will be immune from such things is arguing against recent history.

Fair enough on not being the last person, but I am, NOT recommending pandering to racists and misogynists.

The bare assertion of "I'm not recommending pandering to racists and misogynists, I just think there should be racial and gender barriers to the presidency" is not terribly convincing. If reserving the presidency to someone with a pale penis isn't "pandering to racists and misogynists", what is?

I almost issued a Hell call, because that statement is either incredibly stupid (which you obviously are not) or a troll, because it isn't what I said. In the case that you are either stubbornly making some sort of point I will simply and condense my point on this thread:
There is no minority or female in current contention and in the current state of their campaign/feeling-out-the-possiblities who can beat Trump. The most viable choices, at the moment, are Bernie and Biden. ²

I'm pretty sure I already answered this in convenient, bullet pointed form. Building an electoral strategy based on the assumption that all these factors will be just as present and relevant in 2020 as they were in 2016 seems like the political equivalent of generals always wanting to re-fight the last war.

No, it isn't. It is the equivalent of learning from history. Change is slow. And the best dancer is the one who understands the rhythm of the tune that is playing, not the dreamy one you wish did.

Perhaps I will look at it. If for no other reason than to see if you are looking at history or re-fighting the last war.

I think both of these analyses miss the point. Male candidates can be derailed by inane trivia or outright falsehoods. Think about all the column-inches wasted on Al Gore sighing or wearing earth tones, or on the accusation that John Kerry was falsely claiming to have won three Purple Hearts.

I am not saying that white males are bullet-proof. Though I could simply point out that those white guys were running against other white guys and correctly and effectively negate your point, I will say that winning and losing can be a little more complex than that.

Assuming that Mighty Whitey will be immune from such things is arguing against recent history.

Seriously, dude? A reasonable interpretation of this could be you are more interested in making some personal points than actually engaging with mine. You have been here long enough, and interacted with me on a sufficient number of threads to understand how ridiculous this is.

Ted Kennedy is not the person whose morals would lead one to choose him to further women's rights, but he did. Lyndon Johnson was hardly an egalitarian, but he got the Civil Rights bill signed. Lincoln, one of my favourite American presidents, didn't believe black people were the equals of white people. And yet he ended slavery. Flawed, but effective is better than perfect, but unelectable.¹

In the next two years, it is very likely the Supreme Court lost to the people.³ The House, by itself, will not be able to enact enough positive change in those years, potentially poisoning 2020.
The environment will continue taking a battering in that time and the four years after are fairly crucial.
So, what is important to you? A perfect candidate or one that will more likely forestall free sailing in the Arctic, food shortage famines and Fred's son's second term?

If you want to stand on the deck of the USS Principal as it sinks into the rising seas, go ahead. If you want to continue sailing, it is better to board the SS practical. After all, I am not saying nominate a Nazi to save the Jews, the choices I am asking you to consider are all on the same side of the divide.

¹To, perhaps in vain, forestall stupid comments: Black people and women did the bulk of the work for the bulk of the rights gained. I am not saying white men granted those rights and freedoms. Just making the point that perfect and politically effective are two, different things.

²Though Cory Booker has potential, though he mightn't be the speaker that Obama is. From my limited viewing. And Warren has potential, but she has needs to redirect her MO.

³Save rich, white ones.

And to be absolfuckinglutely, crystal as fuck clear; I am not advocating a "Go Slow" approach to progress. Just an effective one.

There is no minority or female in current contention and in the current state of their campaign/feeling-out-the-possiblities who can beat Trump. The most viable choices, at the moment, are Bernie and Biden.²

<snip>

A reasonable interpretation of this could be you are more interested in making some personal points than actually engaging with mine. You have been here long enough, and interacted with me on a sufficient number of threads to understand how ridiculous this is.

I am engaging your point. I'm questioning your assertion that Joe Biden (or Bernie Sanders) is Jonny Unbeatable, an assertion that seems to be premised on the faulty assumptions of Trump having the backing of a large electorate and that Americans won't vote for a woman or anyone who isn't white, despite the fact that the top vote-getters in past three presidential elections were a woman and a black man. I'm not arguing from principle (or "principal"), merely making the pragmatic, evidence-based observation that your assertions are backed by several dubious assumptions and unsupported by much analysis. For example, dismissing Kamala Harris with a simple "I don’t see her winning" is hardly a full and pragmatic analysis, and your omission of Kirsten Gillibrand from any analysis whatsoever seems like quite the oversight.

Another significant issue with both Joe Biden / Bernie Sanders candidacies is age. It's true that young people supported Bernie's candidacy in significant numbers. But was it Bernie himself or his policy proposals that garnered all that support? Nothing against Bernie, whom I personally admire and voted for in the primary, but I think it's the policies that inspired that support. It's also true that young people came out in droves for the midterms (when neither Joe not Bernie was running for Pres.).

In the 2020 election, the youth who voted in the midterms will be a couple of years older themselves, and if they embark on SS Practical, they may have second thoughts about sending a (then) 79- or 78-year-old (Sanders & Biden respectively) off to the Oval Office for a 4-year term. While both seem plenty hale and sharp right now, the stresses of the office are substantial (and may well be significantly worse post-tRump) and are known to age those who take them on. After the chaos we've already experienced under 45 (and worse to come, I fear), risking additional shifts and changes should anything happen to either venerable gentleman while in office is not appealing.

Again, my tea-leaf set is incomplete, as I live far from the Rust Belt and the farm suicides (though our family dairies, too, are facing challenges and closing). My state has been hard-hit by the opioid crisis.

My work brings me into constant contact with folks in their late teens and early 20s, and while I haven't done any scientific polling, my general impression is that these young men and women (with some exceptions) do not give a fig about color, sex, or gender. They care about climate change, student debt, access to health care, and income inequality, and in about that order. The exceptions are a few young men resentful of a perceived loss of status, and a few young women urgently plugging for more women in high leadership positions.

If Democrats want the votes of these folks, I'm convinced that WHO runs under the Democratic banner may ultimately matter less than the planks in the platform -- WHAT they run on.